Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: Tom4Panic Date: May 11, 2006 4:37am
Forum: etree Subject: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

I've been coming to this site for about 2 years now and have really enjoyed it. I can honestly say, it is my favorite site on the web. With the new changes that have occurred, I can't enjoy it like I used too.

This is how I used to look at your site. Log on, browse bands, click on a band I would like to listen to, click on a specific year the band preformed, search all the shows by weeding out crappy recordings by looking at the source, click on the show I think might be a good sounding one, click listen, smile.

Now since the change, I click on browse by creator, click a band name, then it sends me to a search results page of random shows from that band, become upset, log off. The search results page doesn't even list the recording source.

I feel the new site is disappointing, confusing, and unorganized.

Please do not deactivate this page, http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse.php?collection=etree, so that people who search for shows like I do, stay smiling. :)


This post was modified by Tom4Panic on 2006-05-11 11:34:41

This post was modified by Tom4Panic on 2006-05-11 11:37:28

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffgreenone Date: May 11, 2006 5:02am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

But it *was* broken. And inconsistent. And s l o w to get things fixed. I think that what we're seeing right now is a bare-bones approach to the new, unified system, so that all collections work identically. Much less work for the curators, and much more flexible/extensible for us end users to pretty much do whatever we want.

Once the back-end, systemic bugs are fully worked out, they can go about making the front end all pretty for us based on feedback, what's worked in the past, what people have said they'd like to see, etc.

Am I completely happy with the new interface? No, I'm not. But this isn't the final product, by a long shot, and they've said as much.

--Dave

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: May 11, 2006 5:08am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

"But this isn't the final product, by a long shot, and they've said as much."

if thats the case then there should still be a link to the old setup.. so one can get to both...

also i was very happy with the old system..
my only complaint ever was with the messgae board which by the way should list more than 4 posts on the main page in my opinion.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 11, 2006 5:30am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Well, remember "uploads full" or "uploads stalled" or the worst couple times, "upload crashed"? ;)

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2006-05-11 12:30:00

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Tom4Panic Date: May 11, 2006 5:19am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

As long as they keep the page http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse.php?collection=etree active, I could care less about the "new format".

Actually, why don't they just add this(http://www.archive.org/audio/etreelisting-browse.php?collection=etree) as a link on the front page right under "browse by creator"? Maybe called it "Browse Bands by Year and Source.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: macfawlty Date: May 14, 2006 12:27am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

I still haven't figured out a way to browse to the links you just provided so thanks for posting them. Now I can get back to browsing the way that always seemed to work very well for me, by year and date rather than by most popular shows. Is there a link on the new home page to get to these previous browse methods or am I just not looking hard enough?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Fishead Date: May 11, 2006 5:33am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

this is the 1st day!!! chill!!! give them time !!!!! before the bashing !!! geez!!!! complain !! complain !!!! complain!!!

if you don't like it ....get your own damm site !!! wink!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: laptaper Date: May 11, 2006 5:40am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Yes!!!!!!!!!Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!excamation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!points!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
::::::::::::::-----------------------;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;
Rock on, Diana, you, Brewster and the rest are the nads. :-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: lastcall Date: May 11, 2006 6:19am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

for a vast resource that is absolutley FREE there seems to be a whole lot of folks who think for some reason that they know whats best. to those of you, be happy with what you've got. it could be nothing.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dgrayshn Date: May 11, 2006 4:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

i can't agree with you more!

"dont fix something that isn't broken"

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 11, 2006 5:05am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

"dont fix something that isn't broken"

You're saying you don't remember all the "sorry it's broken" times up to now?! Glad to see some of the old problems go.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hatta Date: May 11, 2006 5:32am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

I realize you're all trying to make this a better place through this transition, but it just seems like curing the disease by killing the patient.

If you want to keep the users from freaking out, give us some warning and let us do some testing before changing over. Dropping browse by year is a big, BIG usability change which would have been noticed if you did just a little beta testing. Then you could have fixed it BEFORE moving the new system to production. And then everyone would not freak out, and you'd be having a much better day. :)

I'm still trying to figure out how to browse by year for bands with mp3s. Any ideas?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or Staffgreenone Date: May 11, 2006 5:42am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

If you want to keep the users from freaking out, give us some warning and let us do some testing before changing over.

This may sound cold, but... this site really isn't about the users (of which I am one - just a user, not an admin); it's about the content, and preserving that content. And the content was REALLY suffering under the old system. Entire shows disappearing, bug reports left right and center, and not enough curators to keep up with it all. To continue with your metaphor, the patient was sick, but the delays in moving it over to the new system was making it much sicker by the day, as the old system was creaky and required much more intervention by the few curators with access.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 11, 2006 5:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

i am just curious as to how the "new system" is going to fix these "bugs" and make navigation easier for the user (like me). not complaining, just trying to figure out the new changes. i am not good with change :-P

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: J.C. Date: May 11, 2006 11:31am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

"this site really isn't about the users"

By that logic, why spend the bandwidth to make it public at all?

Sorry, but a *public* library is about the users.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dancing Salmon Date: May 11, 2006 10:50pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

I can understand that the engine behind the interface had to be changed (though I never noticed problems myself).

But that doesn't mean that the user interface, the front-end, had to change in all the ways it has. Indeed, the old navigation tools are still available, only hidden -- so obviously they still work.

I think the "mistake" here was changing both the internal stuff -- database, admnistrative/curatorial tools -- and the user interface at the same time. It would have caused less freakout to hold off on the latter until the former changes settled down, and then to seek user input or make a beta version available for user comment alongside the old interface.

I can see that it may have been less work to do both at the same time, and that the programmers were actively trying to give us a nifty new interface that would let us do all sorts of neat new programmerly things (hierarchical is so last decade :-)... but those aren't necessarily what the user wants to do.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 11, 2006 11:31pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

I'm not a computer person, but AFAIK the user interface is tied to the backend stuff. That was true of the old system too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 11, 2006 4:48am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

total agreement!!!!!!!!!!!!! just posted to diana on this issue. like she says, hopefully tweaks to the system will make things as easy as they used to be. the new system sucks big time. time will tell though. still the best music site on the web.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: matt austin Date: May 11, 2006 6:49am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Man, am I having fun reading all these. Very interesting to see what happens when you change something that's been so familiar. I'm sure that, given time, all will be just fine here at the llama. Looking forward to learning the ins and outs of the new site. Thanks to all who've been working towards this.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: famousmoking Date: May 11, 2006 5:49am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Thank you for including that page link. It is my only sanity from this new confusion. I search like you search. One Love.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: djc77 Date: May 11, 2006 4:54am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Yeah, I have to jump on this band wagon too. The changes have got me soo confused and frustrated... I don't understand all this added complexity, and it doesn't seem like I can get a comprehensive list for ALL recordings by a given artist. There's some many search options and what have you that depending upon the approach, I get different results every time.

I expect there's lots of bugginess to work out, and I'll reserve final judgement for a while, but honestly, the Archive has lost some major points with me. :(

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: freakshow42 Date: May 11, 2006 5:01am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Have to agree. Please return the browse links for Mp3 bands as well as Flac only bands on the front page below the acoustic guitar picture!!! The new search method is inefficient and frustrating.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: laptaper Date: May 11, 2006 5:45am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

By the way, if you go one level up, i.e. start at the home page, right below the link for the live music archive you'll see one that says "browse by band". That should get you where you want to go.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: May 11, 2006 5:51am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

actually the 'browse my creator" works better. thanks for that idea though - it works!!!!! now i am happier (not that anyone cares) :)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 11, 2006 6:03am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Like I mentioned in another thread though, that's more like a ghost of the old system- it's probably not being updated with newer shows.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: laptaper Date: May 11, 2006 6:07am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Okay, after a quick look through the "browse by creator" option, here's my feedback:

1. Change the link to "browse by band", especially if the old link's going to be a relic. To me "creator" meant creator of the recording, not the performer; I'm sure I'm not the only one who was confused by this.

2. I think I see where you're going with this, striving for simplicity and flexibility. Still, I think the following should be defaults when browsing by band/creator:

a. list results in ascending date order, not descending, as is the case now when you click the "sort by date" option.

b. either show links to individual years or have a "show all" option. The way things are now I don't know which link to click on if I want to find GD 5/3/72, e.g.

c. definitely show the source info up front, without forcing us to click on each individual show's link to find out. That is very frustrating.

If these things can be done I think you'll go a long way to once again making this the kickassingest site on the web. Thanks again.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 11, 2006 8:08am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Feature Requests

1. Change the link to "browse by band", especially if the old link's going to be a relic. To me "creator" meant creator of the recording, not the performer; I'm sure I'm not the only one who was confused by this.

One difficulty is that the "Browse by Creator" link appears designed to be generalized across all collections, including movies, texts, podcast stuff. So "Creator" is probably the best term in the context of the whole site.

a. list results in ascending date order, not descending, as is the case now when you click the "sort by date" option.

You mean rather than the freshest stuff to sort first, you're asking for the oldest stuff to sort first? I'd think that would be the less popular way, whether for LMA folks looking for the most recently played shows (like they always seem to want), or people looking for the latest episodes of vlogs or podcasts in other collections.

b. either show links to individual years or have a "show all" option. The way things are now I don't know which link to click on if I want to find GD 5/3/72, e.g.

Having a better version of "browse by year" appears to be the most popular feature request today.

c. definitely show the source info up front, without forcing us to click on each individual show's link to find out. That is very frustrating.

One difficulty is that the search engine across the whole site is set to show the "description" field for each item, which in case of LMA is where the setlist goes. The source goes into a separate field from that.

I'm not one of the engineers and don't know how changeable some things will be, or all the things that will be tweaked. Just pointing out that some of the aspects of the present style come from the Big Picture of how the entire library is set up right now. It's a kick-butt site that's much bigger than just the LMA! (From readng news reports, I'm guessing Text collections are going to get much huger for instance.)

This post was modified by Diana Hamilton on 2006-05-11 15:08:39

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dancing Salmon Date: May 12, 2006 12:11am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Feature Requests

[c. definitely show the source info up front, without forcing us to click on each individual show's link to find out. That is very frustrating.]
One difficulty is that the search engine across the whole site is set to show the "description" field for each item, which in case of LMA is where the setlist goes. The source goes into a separate field from that.


I have to agree with the post you reply to here -- after (or maybe even before) the vanishing of the by-year display, the vanishing of the source info in the "thumbnail" search results is the biggest hit. When there are 2, 3 or more recordings of a given concert, you can't distinguish them. For Grateful Dead specifically, the sbd / aud distinction is crucial, since sbds can't be downloaded.

Two possible fixes:
(1) allow more flexibility in which field(s) are displayed in the search results, either set by curators for various collections, or choosable by user. This could be useful for other collections as well.
(2) restructure the LMA database to put the source info in the description field, in addition to or instead of the setlist.

I realize these are big projects, not minor tweaks. But this loss is a big hit.

This post was modified by Dancing Salmon on 2006-05-12 07:10:51

This post was modified by Dancing Salmon on 2006-05-12 07:11:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: laptaper Date: May 11, 2006 3:49pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Feature Requests

I'm not talking about the date it was added to the archive but the date of the show, since that's how most people are probably trying to search the shows. Descending or ascending doesn't really matter, I guess, order is the key ingredient here.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 11, 2006 9:28pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Feature Requests

There's a "sort by date" option on the righthand side when you get the initial results page, along with a "sort by date added" option. Most recent dates come first in either sorting method.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dancing Salmon Date: May 11, 2006 11:16pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Feature Requests

There's a "sort by date" option on the righthand side when you get the initial results page, along with a "sort by date added" option. Most recent dates come first in either sorting method.

"sort by date added" -- most recent first is probably best order. As you say, what most who use this option want is to see what's newly available.

"sort by date (of event)" -- at least when considering the LMA as an Archive, normal chronological order, from January to December, would seem more intuitive and comfortable across all archives, not just music.

But best of all, why not give people a choice?
Say click once on "sort by date" and you get the default order, click again and it reverses. Eventually users could even set a personal preference.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: laptaper Date: May 11, 2006 3:35pm
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Feature Requests

If the "Browse by creator" link is meant to go across the whole site, not just shows in the LMA, then perhaps it shouldn't be in the "Live Music Archive" section. As I said, it is confusing. And hopefully the DB engineers will be able to figure out some way of displaying the source info, because it does slow down the search - perhaps have an option to display only audiences or only boards??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: nagdot Date: May 11, 2006 8:47am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Feature Requests

speakin of feature request; how bout making the streaming shows gapless ? i use other sites where there are no gaps between songs, its one of the reasons i dont use this site like i should . also speaking of changes ;isnt that why you deadheads still follow a dead band, afraid of change (sorry direwolf i had too lol)speaking of direwolf; im gonna catch you sooner or later go griffey jr and the reds woohoo lmao

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: laptaper Date: May 11, 2006 5:59am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

Any chance of it being carried over to the new one? It seems to make people happy. :o)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffDiana Hamilton Date: May 11, 2006 6:14am
Forum: etree Subject: Re: Why change something that was so good and make it so bad?

That appears to be a top feature request. ;)